JUDGMENT : (V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.) Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 24.03.2015 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.327 of 2013. 2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri P.Raja Sekhar, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: The appellant, aged 50 years, has been a lecturer in mathematics at Chaitanya College earning a monthly salary and has also been conducting private tuitions to students and was earning money. On 19.12.2012 during daytime at about 3:30 P.M. he was crossing road in Currency Nagar, Vijayawada. At that time an Innova Car bearing registration No.AP-16-BC-1234 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and the vehicle dashed the pedestrian causing him serious injuries. The injured person was treated at Vijaya Super Specialty Hospital at Vijayawada and thereafter at Asram Hospital at Eluru. The incident of accident was registered as Crime No.917 of 2012 by Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada/Ex.A.1. After due investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending Innova Car as per Ex.A.6. The offending vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector who issued Ex.A.3 report stating that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the vehicle. The person who was driving the offending vehicle at the material point of time was shown to have valid and effective driving licence as per Ex.A.4. At the material point of time the vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 herein and he got it insured, which is evidenced by Ex.A.5. Copy of insurance policy equivalent to it is Ex.B.1 which is attested true copy of insurance policy. During investigation the scene of offence was inspected by the police, and they drew a rough sketch evidenced by Ex.B.2. The injured claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.327 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 therein was the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company. Before the Claims Tribunal the owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter wherein it denied all the allegations mentioned in the claim petition. Respondent No.1 therein was the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company. Before the Claims Tribunal the owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter wherein it denied all the allegations mentioned in the claim petition. It further raised a contention that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car but it was out of negligent act of the claimant in coming onto the road all of a sudden. It prayed for dismissal of the claim. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident that occurred on 19.12.2012 at about 15:30 hours near Currency Nagar, Vijayawada due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP-16-BC-1234 and caused injuries to the petitioner or not? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and from which of the respondent? 3) To what relief? 5. PWs.1 to 4, Exs.A.1 to A.16, Exs.X.1 to X.7 for claimants and RW.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 for respondent No.2-insurance company was the evidence placed for consideration. 6. After a detailed analysis of facts, the learned Claims Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.2 and the evidence of the injured claimant/PW.1 and the investigative record of the police and concluded saying that the injured claimant was not at fault and the accident was result of rash or negligent driving of Innova Car by its driver. It found existence of valid and effective insurance policy by the date of accident and stated that the owner and the insurance company were liable to pay compensation. It assessed the evidence produced on both sides and granted compensation under the following heads: S .No. Compensation awarded under different heads by Claims Tribunal Amount 1. Transport to the hospital Rs. 2,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.2,60,000/- 3. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 4. Medical attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 5. Pain and Suffering Rs. 6,000/- 6. Mental agony Rs. 8,000/- 7. Compensation for two grievous injuries each Rs.18,000/- Rs. 36,000/- 8. compensation for two simple injuries each injury Rs.2,000/- Rs. 4,000/- 9. loss of income Rs. 50,000/- 10. Transport to the hospital Rs. 2,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.2,60,000/- 3. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 4. Medical attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 5. Pain and Suffering Rs. 6,000/- 6. Mental agony Rs. 8,000/- 7. Compensation for two grievous injuries each Rs.18,000/- Rs. 36,000/- 8. compensation for two simple injuries each injury Rs.2,000/- Rs. 4,000/- 9. loss of income Rs. 50,000/- 10. Total Amount Rs.3,86,000/- It finally passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of Rs.3,83,000/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the said amount into the court within one month from the date of this award. After deposit of such amount the claimant is permitted to with draw Rs.60,000/- at once, his balance amount, cost and interest shall be kept FDR in any nationalised bank for a period of 3 years. The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.” In paragraph No.39 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal stated that the claimant was entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,86,000/-, but in the result portion, it inadvertently stated that the petition was allowed partly by awarding total compensation of Rs.3,83,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is taken as Rs.3,86,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal. 8. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, referring to the evidence on record, made submissions stating that the Claims Tribunal committed many errors and it failed to grant adequate compensation. It is argued that towards loss of actual earnings and towards actual medical expenses only meager amounts were granted without reason and therefore, compensation as prayed in the claim petition may be awarded. 9. As against it, Sri P.Raja Sekhar, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company stoutly contended that the entire evidence on record was appropriately appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. The appellant/claimant though asserted that because of the injuries he became permanently disabled, he failed to produce any disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. That the impugned award does not require any interference and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 10. The appellant/claimant though asserted that because of the injuries he became permanently disabled, he failed to produce any disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. That the impugned award does not require any interference and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award failed to grant ‘just’ compensation as it failed to consider the evidence appropriately?” POINT 11. As per the evidence on record the appellant suffered the following injuries: 1. Fracture of left fibula 2. HRCT chest 3. Fracture of ribs 4. Skin laceration. 12. He was treated at Vijaya Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada for three days. He was also treated as an in-patient in Asram Hospital, Eluru from 22.12.2012 to 26.01.2013. After he was discharged from hospital he was advised to rest for a period of three months. PW.3 and PW.4 were the doctors who testified about the injuries the appellant suffered and the treatments they had given. Evidence of PW.1 is that he spent lot of money for his treatment and in support of it he showed Exs.A.11 to A.15. Exhibits Amount Ex.A11 is bunch of medical bills Rs. 82,604.42 ps. Ex.A12 is the IP final bill issued by Vijaya Super Specialty hospital Rs. 40,000.00 Ex.A13 is the bunch of medical bills issued by Global hospital Rs. 12,318.00 Ex.A14 is the in-patient final bill issued by Asram hospital Rs.1,87,561.00 ?x.A15 is the bunch of medical bills issued by Asram hospital Rs. 84,493.62 ps. Total Rs.4,06,977.04 ps. 13. All this evidence was placed before the learned Chairman, Claims Tribunal. However, it granted Rs.2,60,000/- towards actual medical expenses. Thus, the Claims Tribunal granted only a part of it. The only reason recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph No.39 of its impugned award is that in its opinion such expenditure is highly excessive. That finding is assailed in this appeal. When on oath the injured and two of his doctors testified and proved the injuries suffered by the appellant and the expenditure incurred by the appellant vide Exs.A.11 to A.15, the Claims Tribunal was expected to grant what was disclosed by those documents. It was entitled to discard the evidence only when evidence contrary to that was made available before it. RW.1 is not a medical man. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company did not lead evidence of any other medical expert. It was entitled to discard the evidence only when evidence contrary to that was made available before it. RW.1 is not a medical man. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company did not lead evidence of any other medical expert. In the absence of any evidence disproving what was demonstrated through Exs.A.11 to A.15 negating the claim by the Claims Tribunal is an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction. It failed to consider relevant evidence. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the claimant should have been awarded Rs.4,06,977/- towards actual medical expenses. Since the Claims Tribunal already granted an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- the remaining balance of Rs.1,46,977/- is granted towards the actual medical expenses. 14. PW.1 claimed that he has been a lecturer in mathematics at Chaitanya College. PW.2 is the principal of that college. Ex.A.7 is a bunch of copies of four pay slips disclosing the salary received by the claimant as a lecturer in that college. From that evidence the Claims Tribunal found that the injured claimant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month towards his salary. 15. The accident occurred on 19.12.2012. As an in-patient in both the hospitals, one after another, the patient was discharged on 26.01.2013. For about 3 months he was advised to rest after being discharged from the hospital. The evidence of PW.4 was that the injured has been still taking treatment under him. From the above facts, it is clear that at least for a period of four months the appellant could not attend to his duties. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 he lost earnings for that period. At the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month he had lost Rs.80,000/- actual earnings. The learned Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.50,000/-. Why it did not grant the other amount was not mentioned in the impugned award at all. In these circumstances an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted towards actual loss of earnings. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was also earning Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000/- per month from giving tuition privately. That was rightly disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal since no evidence was produced disclosing truth of such assertion. This Court finds no reason to interfere with it. 17. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant suffered physical disability. The reply from the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is that no physical disability certificate was filed. This Court finds no reason to interfere with it. 17. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant suffered physical disability. The reply from the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is that no physical disability certificate was filed. It is clear from the record that the disability certificate was not assessed by the Medical Board and no certificate indicating any physical disability was filed. However, the evidence of PW.4-the doctor was that the appellant/claimant even after all the treatment was found able to attend his duties only to some extent. The nature of injuries suffered by the appellant was already noticed. He obtained long treatment is also noticed. Being a lecturer, his job demands standing on legs and teaching for a long number of hours. The apt contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that because of these injuries the appellant is unable to stand for such lengths of time and even after the treatment he is unable to lead his normal life. There is merit in these submissions. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to grant anything towards loss of amenities. In the opinion of this Court, Rs.50,000/- is required to be granted towards loss of amenities. The various other amounts granted by the Claims Tribunal seem to be in tune with the evidence available in the record. Therefore, they call for no interference. 18. Therefore, the point is answered by granting the additional amount of Rs.2,26,977/- under the following heads: Towards actual medical bills Rs.1,46,977/- Towards actual loss of earnings Rs. 30,000/- Towards loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs.2,26,977/- 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 24.03.2015 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.327 of 2013 from Rs.3,86,000/- to Rs.6,12,977/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. The second respondent- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.